W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-dist-auth@w3.org > July to September 1998

RE: Best use of variants

From: Jim Whitehead <ejw@ics.uci.edu>
Date: Thu, 6 Aug 1998 14:48:08 -0700
To: "Babich, Alan" <ABabich@filenet.com>, WEBDAV WG <w3c-dist-auth@w3.org>
Message-ID: <005101bdc183$e65d6980$d115c380@galileo.ics.uci.edu>

On Wednesday, July 29, Alan Babich wrote:
> I think the best way to way to use variants
> is to limit one's use of variants to being a mechanically
> generated rendition of some other preexisting variant of the
> document. For example, the original document might be a word
> processing document. Another variant of it could be a
> postscript rendition of the document. For an image, a second
> variant could be a postage stamp version of the image,
> or a PDF version of the image.
>
> I don't think that a hand translated version of a document
> should normally be stored as a variant. I think that in
> general the best thing to do is to store hand translated
> versions as separate documents:

It's unclear to me to what degree Alan's later post in this thread ("Yes.")
reflects a retractment of this position, so let me add my voice to John
Stracke's in saying that in my view WebDAV has a strong requirement to
provide authoring support for both human and mechanically generated
variants.  The Web provides retrieval functionality for variants, and our
authoring support should allow most common variant cases to be remotely
authored.

But, I sense that there may have been a terminology mix-up between Web and
Document Management use of the terms variant, document, and resource, which
seems to have been resolved, so I won't beat this issue any further.

- Jim
Received on Thursday, 6 August 1998 18:25:31 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 2 June 2009 18:43:47 GMT